InterProSolution.com - please review...
Hi everybody,
please take a look at my site http://www.interprosolution.com and please tell me what you think of it. I'm very curious of your thoughts and impressions.
Let me just briefly describe what we do:
Our site is subdivided into two parts:
1) Products
2) Tools & Services for Webmasters
** EDITED BY JS. THAT'S A BRIEF ENOUGH DESCRIPTION **
Eugene Grinberg
http://www.interprosolution.com
Complete Internet Promotion Solution
[This message has been edited by Eugene Grinberg (edited 20 February 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Justin Stayton (edited 23 February 2000).]
Brian Farkas posted this at 04:19 — 21st February 2000.
They have: 1,015 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
This is a request for a site critique, not an advertisement of your services... you shouldn't need to describe what you do, all you are asking us to do is look at your site and give comments.
Anyway, the design actually looks pretty good. I would suggest adding rollovers to your buttons. But, other than that, I have no suggestions. Good job!
Brian
------------------
Web Design - Hosting - Promotion - Programming
InfoStar Web Design - Click Here!
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 04:31 — 21st February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
Thanks Brian,
I actually was not going for an advertisement, was just trying to explain what we do. But anyway, I was considering rollovers, but since I already have too many images on the site, I did not want to decrease its performance by doubling or tripling the amount of images.
Thanks for your review,
Eugene.
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 05:19 — 21st February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
The CSS style links are there just to freshen up the home page. Those pages are accessible with the buttons on the right side of the screen.
Although I see why the design might seem 'busy', I think it is very original and looks pretty good.
Eugene.
dangelo posted this at 14:17 — 21st February 2000.
They have: 152 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
I got a "connection timed out" page
------------------
-RJ D'Angelo
D'Angelo Web Design
http://www.dangelowebdesign.com
Megan posted this at 15:08 — 21st February 2000.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
The whole right side looks very blurry to me. The buttons kind of fade into the background.
This is probably just my personal preference, but I think the design is too busy. There are too many effects, too much overlapping... it's just too much IMO. I would streamline it quite a bit.
It's weird how those demos open new windows. What's the difference between Customer and Business solution? The business solution page doesn't make much sense to me - will your visitors know how to use it? It's also working kind of strangely for me - I click on a link, the new page comes up for about a second and then I get a 404.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 16:35 — 21st February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
Thanks dangelo for looking at the site.
We are going to be moving to a new server in about two-three weeks and the site's performance should increase. We are currently being hosted by webhosting.com and their downtime has increased dramatically over the past couple of months. Once we move to a new server this problem should be resolved.
I would also like to thank Megan for the review. It was actually the first time ever that I heard a negative review about the design. All I've heard so far was positive, and I was also interested in contrasting opinions. As far as the demos go, let me explain:
The product that we offer is a distributed package that allows others to run their own internet promotion services on their sites. The Customer Solution part is an internet promotion site which they will post on the web. The Business Solution is an administrative tool which is indended to customize the Customer Solution and to view reports about buying activity on the Customer Solution. The Business Solution is for the business' use only.
Another thing is that every page is Business Solution contains a 'Help' link, which explains the purpose of that page.
Eugene.
[This message has been edited by Eugene Grinberg (edited 21 February 2000).]
dangelo posted this at 16:43 — 21st February 2000.
They have: 152 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
I was using my other internet explorer (4.0) and its all messed up, thats why I couldnt open up the web site. I opened it up now, and it loaded really fast. I agree with Megan, the design is very busy. But that's just a preference thing.
------------------
-RJ D'Angelo
D'Angelo Web Design
http://www.dangelowebdesign.com
-RJ D'Angelo
http://www.dangelowebdesign.com
http://sopranos.virtualave.net
[email protected]
JFEngle posted this at 16:50 — 21st February 2000.
They have: 65 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
I was looking at the main page, and I thought that the links were text. Viewers might overlook the links, because they might think it's just text. If I were you I'd make the links either underlined all the time, or something of your choice, which makes links harder to overlook.
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 03:46 — 22nd February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
I was also interested of your opinions about the following:
When you click any of the buttons on the Home Page, a framed document will open with an image-based menu in the left frame.
Do you think I need to go for a text-based menu in the left frame instead?
Eugene
bilbong30 posted this at 04:25 — 22nd February 2000.
They have: 406 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Hello,
I think the design at the top looks good. Very professionally layed out. As far as the links on the left, i agree, kinda blurry. Also i have 640x480 screen and i always hate having to scroll over to see the links and then scrolling back over to read the content.But im sure the majority have bigger screens but just a suggestion. Looks good though
------------------
Best Regards,
Adam Lee
DigitalONE Design
President - Internet Division
[email protected]
digitalonedesign.com
bilbong30 posted this at 04:34 — 22nd February 2000.
They have: 406 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Disregard my comment about the scrolling from left to right.. I had my favorites menu up in my browser so that caused a problem.lol
Adam
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 04:50 — 22nd February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
Thanks Adam,
You made a great point about having to scroll down to see all the options. This issue had one of the highest priorities during the design of the site. But with time, the site grew and grew, we added many new services, and some of the buttons had to be moved down.
We are actually considering changing the image-based menu in the left frame to a JavaScript text-based menu, because we are going to add new services to the site within the next few weeks, and we want visitors to be able to view the entire menu under any screen resolution.
Eugene.
Anonymous posted this at 14:41 — 22nd February 2000.
They have: 5,633 posts
Joined: Jan 1970
I think you have one of the best web designs that I ever saw. Gorgeous colors and a great composition. Wow!
As far as your content goes, you have lots of great webmaster resources.
Two words: Great Job!!!
p.s. I bookmarked your site
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 15:20 — 22nd February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
Thanks.
I appreciate your comments.
Eugene
Malte posted this at 20:28 — 22nd February 2000.
They have: 297 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
Do the follwoing, so you'll be sure you wont have to scroll:
Make a screen shot at the resolution you want to design for, load it in Photoshop and design the page inside the white area. Then slice the image, copy the text and throw it all together in Dreamweaver or what ever program you may use.
I think the buttons on the right look kinda uncreative. MAybe you can come up with something fancier than rounded recangles.
Malte
Justin S posted this at 21:35 — 22nd February 2000.
They have: 2,076 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Brace yourself! Negative comments coming
1) Although the design is good, it doesn't fit with the content of your site at all! The design looks more like the design for a corporate site while 90% of your visitors will be there for the free stuff. I would suggest going for a catchier design...
2) The graphics have too much fading and blurring. It takes away from some parts of the site that you want people to notice: ie your logo and menu.
3) You have the world in the background, but not all the way around. WHat I mean is, you have a complete circle, but on the picture of the earch in the section with your logo, and the part with your menu. I would make it go all the way around.
4) I like how you use frames on your sub-pages, but the design doesn't look right with your content, and it's too cluttered. I don't think it's too cluttered on the main page, only on the sub-pages w/ frames.
Overall I like the design, but not for the content you have.
------------------
The fireburn.com Network:
Justin Stayton - [email] [icq]
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 03:39 — 23rd February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
Justin, I must admit, that was not easy.
Thanks for your comments. As far as the frames on the sub-pages go, would you suggest switching to a bit simpler text-based menu, instead of buttons?
Eugene Grinberg
http://www.interprosolution.com
[This message has been edited by Eugene Grinberg (edited 22 February 2000).]
AndyB posted this at 10:21 — 23rd February 2000.
They have: 344 posts
Joined: Aug 1999
This could be one of those 'form over function' things. I think there's a lot of artistic talent that went into the design. I liked a lot of the components on the pages, but ..... there's nothing intrinsically wrong with 'white space'. Sometimes it's easier to find what you want when there's a little visual relief.
For a bad example: try to find a rubber band in your kitchen drawer. Notice how much easier it is after you tip the contents on to the floor
Nobody objects to scrolling down .. scrolling across seems to be the kiss of death. Just keep the most important stuff at the top of the page(s).
aside to Justin: is there anything inherently bad about having a 'corporate' look?
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 15:24 — 23rd February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
Thanks Andy.
We were actually trying to go for the 'corporate' look. I believe it gives a site more credibility. And I think it shows: our log files show that an overwhelming percentage of our visitors procede to sub-pages after visiting the home page.
Eugene.
[This message has been edited by Eugene Grinberg (edited 23 February 2000).]
Justin S posted this at 15:29 — 23rd February 2000.
They have: 2,076 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
A corporate look just doesn't look right. Take for example some of your competitors:
bCentral (http://www.bcentral.com/) = very catchy and fun look, but at the same time it is creditable.
------------------
The fireburn.com Network:
Justin Stayton - [email] [icq]
Eugene Grinberg posted this at 19:12 — 23rd February 2000.
They have: 47 posts
Joined: Jan 2000
Justin,
I agree with you, somewhat. But, http://www.bcentral.com is a service of Microsoft, which is known by everyone. They don't need to work hard to attract visitors, and convince them that they have a worthwhile service.
A relatively unknown site must have an extra edge, which I think begins with a more professional (corporate) look, to bring credibility to it. There are lots of Promotion sites and Webmaster Resources sites out there, so when a customer chooses who to do business with, an obvious candidate would be a business who can be trusted, and that, I believe, starts from a professional design of that business' site.
How do you feel about this?
Eugene.
Anonymous posted this at 22:50 — 28th February 2000.
They have: 5,633 posts
Joined: Jan 1970
Good point. I would not want to do business with a site that has a 'playful' look. If a site has a 'business' look, I will consider doing business with it.
I really like the 'business' look of your site, Eugene. I think you did a great job.
Good luck with your site.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.